Opinion
No. 39568.
September 26, 1955.
1. Adverse possession — evidence — boundary line dispute — old fences.
In boundary line dispute wherein Chancellor viewed the premises, evidence sustained finding that regardless of where true boundary line was located, appellee owned and had acquired title by adverse possession to all land down to fence between the two tracts which had allegedly been maintained for about 25 years until just prior to filing of suit.
2. Appeal — Chancellor's findings — disputed questions of fact.
Chancellor's findings on sharply disputed questions of fact cannot be disturbed on appeal.
Headnotes as approved by Hall, J.
APPEAL from the Chancery Court of Jasper County; ROY P. NOBLE, Chancellor.
O.M. Oates, J.E. Ulmer, Jr., Bay Springs, for appellant.
I. The Court erred in holding that the appellee had been in the open, peaceable, adverse, exclusive possession of this disputed area of land for more than ten years. Grantham v. Masonite Corp., 218 Miss. 745, 67 So.2d 727; Martin v. Culpepper (Miss.), 44 So.2d 568; Walker v. Polk, 208 Miss. 389, 44 So.2d 477.
McFarland McFarland, Bay Springs, for appellee.
I. In suit to determine boundary between plaintiff's land and defendant's land, Chancellor was justified in taking aid from old fence built about forty years previously and in disregarding a recent survey in determining the boundary line. Lankford v. Magee (Miss.), 76 So.2d 845.
II. The trier of the facts in adjudicating between conflicting modern surveys is justified in taking aid from fence locations of the character disclosed in this case when they have stood undisturbed long beyond the statutory period for adverse possession. And fence lines of that age and character stand as sentinels that he who crosses beyond does so at his peril. Hays v. Lyon, 192 Miss. 858, 7 So.2d 523; Louis Cohn Bros. v. Peyton, 145 Miss. 261, 110 So. 509; Griffith's Miss. Chancery Practice (2d ed.), Sec. 674 p. 741.
Appellant owns the SW 1/4 of NW 1/4 of Section 29, Township 4, North Range 11 East, in Jasper County, and the appellee owns the NW 1/4 or NW 1/4 of the same section. This suit involves the disputed boundary line between these two forty-acre subdivisions. Appellee claims that regardless of where the true boundaryline is located he owns and has acquired title by adverse possession to all the land down to a fence between the two tracts which, according to the appellee's evidence, has been there situated and maintained for about twenty-five years until just prior to the filing of this suit when it was torn down and moved about twenty-two yards to the North. That event precipitated the filing of this suit.
(Hn 1) The chancellor patiently listened to the evidence for both parties and at their invitation went upon the premises and inspected the location of the old fence and the markings upon the trees, and made his findings in favor of appellee. (Hn 2) The sole contention here is that his findings are contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. We do not think so. This is a typical case of a sharply disputed question of fact which the chancellor has decided, and we are not authorized to disturb his finding.
Affirmed.
McGehee, C.J., and Lee, Kyle and Holmes, JJ., concur.